Dopers are fact geeks. The kind of people who see 1001 Obscure Facts That Nobody Knows or Cares About on the remainder table at the book store and can’t leave without buying it. Tell a Doper there are no poisonous mammals and the Doper says “*Nunh-unh! * Nancy Grace has boobies and is as venomous as a Gaboon Viper!”.
The kind of people who change their views because they hate losing arguments.
Another cause of the Board’s liberal constituency, then.
“Constituency” is not the correct word, there, the more correct phrasing would be…hey, quit shoving!..Uncool, man!..
I’ll prepare some flowers.
No doubt about it. And you guys did yourselves no favors by defending him pretty much all the way, from Florida to Iraq to New Orleans.
Could you rewrite that sentence? I’m not sure what you’re saying. I didn’t know positions could commit transgressions, for starters.
Yeah, because I can take just about any absurd lefty position on gun control or Israel, to name a couple of issues, and nobody will call me on it. :rolleyes:
Like I said, conservatism has moved way to the right of where it used to be. Those positions that used to be lunatic fringe by conservative standards because they weren’t defensible are now mainstream conservative positions, but they’re no more defensible as a result.
Can you give for-instances? I don’t see a lot of this, myself. And I kinda relish a good argument with someone holding a different set of positions.
Not to mention, with the center-left being a pretty big tent these days, you get a lot of debate between more centrist Dems and more lefty Dems. It’s not like the left has ever been particularly monolithic.
Do you have any examples from the SDMB of reasonable right-leaning positions that have been “shouted down by the mob”?
The position he’s spent the most passion on has been that gay couples should not be entitled to be called “married”, since there might be some bad unforeseeable consequences from allowing the meaning of a word to continue to evolve, or something.
Is “the President is dumber than a trained ape, and so’s his wife” a point of view generally held by conservatives? Because that would explain much.
I’m sure he’d like to offer some, but knows he’d then be shouted down by the mob. 
<3 <3 <3
EDIT: Nope, it happens automatically if the part you wrote in your post does not contain any capital letters. For some reason, the software distinguishes what you wrote from the quotes for reading, but alters both what you wrote and the quotes.
Like it or not, those are the rules. Parodies to which no names are attached do not count. The rule against altering quotes only applies to quote tags with names. Giving magellan a warning is ridiculous, and actually makes me think that there may be some merit to what he says about the mods here.
If this doesn’t get taken away, I think I’ll be lightening up on the guy since he’s clearly cannot fight back as well due to worrying about the mods making up crap to punish him. I mean, even if he had broken the rules, that sort of thing doesn’t receive a Warning, let alone one so pretentiously worded.
Poisonous is not the same as venomous.
Cite that Nancy Grace is not a reptile?
I, uh…
I agree with magellan.
It doesn’t look to me as though it breaks the rule at all. He made it absolutely clear what he was doing, so he abided by the spirit of the law; and he removed the other person’s name, so he abided by the letter of the law.
If this is not how the mods see the spirit or letter of the law, at most a mod note is in order, to clarify. A warning is inappropriate.
Should there be an ATMB thread on this one? I’ll happily C&P over there as well.
That might be a good idea, and especially because it comes from a disinterested bystander instead of magellan01 (or me, although I don’t necessarily disagree with the interpretation of the rule.)
Regards,
Shodan
The male duck billed platypus has poisonous/venomous spurs on its hind legs. It is a mammal. The poison/venom distinction is somewhat recent in the language, within about the last quarter century.
You think it’s o.k. to fuck with a quote if you just remove a person’s name from it, even though it is easily identifiable?
I think that the rule is bright line to avoid confusion. Removing the name, bolding the changed part, and declaring you’re “fixing” what was said makes it more than clear that you’re not attempting to put words in the other person’s mouth, so it doesn’t create the harm the rule is trying to avoid; and it falls on the safe side of the bright line, so it doesn’t violate the letter of the rule.
I’m interpreting the rule as “Don’t screw with the contents of the quote box.”
Wow, very interesting. Thanks for the tip.